The Electoral Finance Bill

[Sp0nge]

modern parliament is not about lawyers

its about our elected representatives from different walks of life reflecting some of the views of our diverse peoples, and eventually coming up with acts which reflect the views of these voters.

thats why we have multiple readings of the bill, people able to make submissions, some of which are implemented, etc

i'd much rather see this current approach,
where all sorts of people have all sorts of views,
where the public are actually getting involved in the system,
even if its just by ringing talkback or going on a protest...
people are actually thinking about the system and taking part in it

imo, thats a healthy democracy at work
fuck lawyers

[Ab]

GENIOUS_AT_WORK.JPG

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by SpaceCowboy

of course, im an idealist looking for utopia. but why cant we have it?

Because there is no "we" looking for what you want; I've not read the rest of your bost btw, but whatever you're after you can be sure most other people aren't.

[IoriDyson]

wow gt you sound like a prick... good job

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Because there is no "we" looking for what you want; I've not read the rest of your bost btw, but whatever you're after you can be sure most other people aren't.

you should read the rest- it made a lot of sense.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by chubby

you should read the rest- it made a lot of sense.

Oh I did; I was simply noting that there are such wild differences between what people want/expect (and paritcularly if you stratify by age) that it's rarely justified to claim "we".

[Know me.]

I know what utopia is.

[chubby]

i think that most people would like a direct input to govt process/decisions.
and for the rest there's californication/coro st.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by chubby

i think that most people would like a direct input to govt process/decisions.

And therein lies the problem -- most people are FUCKING RETARDED. I don't want to live in a society with direct input from most people.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Ab

And therein lies the problem -- most people are FUCKING RETARDED. I don't want to live in a society with direct input from most people.

QFMFT

Sure there needs to be a format for people to express their opinions but why should (for example) the minister of finance take the advice of a supermarket stacker on fiscal expenditure (assuming that their roles reflect their respective levels of knowledge and expertise in the matter)?

If we do want to have a system where everyone can have a say directly on matters of governance then we need to increase the base level of education of the population very significantly (to understate it).

Pixie

[Hannibal]

How about a system of I.Q. weighted voting? This then factors into the overall outcome of government. The HRC would have a field day over that though.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Hannibal

How about a system of I.Q. weighted voting? This then factors into the overall outcome of government. The HRC would have a field day over that though.

I.Q. doesn't really mean much when it's knowledge that you need to be able to vote effectively. It is because of this need of knowledge that I say that to be able to vote people need to pass some reasonably basic tests on economics, philosophy, foreign relations and law. I'm pretty sure the HRC would have a screaming hissy fit over that as well.

[SpaceCowboy]

also i must point out that some of the smartest people out there are greedy, selfish, and out to benefit themselves only. IQ is no basis for how much your vote counts. however, we _should_ be taught in schools why voting is important, why we should care, and whats at stake.

[armourking]

Originally Posted by SpaceCowboy

also i must point out that some of the smartest people out there are greedy, selfish, and out to benefit themselves only. IQ is no basis for how much your vote counts. however, we _should_ be taught in schools why voting is important, why we should care, and whats at stake.

Service Guarantees Citizenship

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

I.Q. doesn't really mean much when it's knowledge that you need to be able to vote effectively. It is because of this need of knowledge that I say that to be able to vote people need to pass some reasonably basic tests on economics, philosophy, foreign relations and law. I'm pretty sure the HRC would have a screaming hissy fit over that as well.

I hate to state the obvious, Draco: i there were such tests, I don't like your chances of passing the law and economics components in particular.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by cyc

I hate to state the obvious, Draco: i there were such tests, I don't like your chances of passing the law and economics components in particular.

Actually - I do very well with my economics exams

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Ab

And therein lies the problem -- most people are FUCKING RETARDED. I don't want to live in a society with direct input from most people.

i hear the truth in what your saying- but seriously, if thats what you think- stop getting so bunched up about this 'democracy' thing. its not a fucking trademark, or like whats happened to the word 'alternative' in music- transformed into a genre label that only requires the word itself in big enough letters to qualify.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Hannibal

How about a system of I.Q. weighted voting? This then factors into the overall outcome of government. The HRC would have a field day over that though.

and where's GT with his -"what about property ownership or gender-based system?"

[Ab]

Originally Posted by chubby

i hear the truth in what your saying- but seriously, if thats what you think- stop getting so bunched up about this 'democracy' thing. its not a fucking trademark, or like whats happened to the word 'alternative' in music- transformed into a genre label that only requires the word itself in big enough letters to qualify.

Could you please repeat the question?

[chubby]

no question- just observing that your vested interests are showing.
(the direction, if not the specifics)

[funnel web]

Good speech by Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TexP6VACeCM

[Ab]

Originally Posted by chubby

your vested interests are showing

And those vested interests are...?

[cyc]

Well, doh, you aren't gleefully smiling as you are subject to a good dose of anti free-speech, rights infringing bukkake from your Labour Party overloads and aren't slurping up all the cum as though your life depended on it. CLEARLY YOU HAVE A VESTED INTEREST! PLEASE FUCK OFF WITH YOUR VESTED INTEREST!

In the puerile little world of sheep like Chubby, if you don't support Aunty Helen unquestioningly, you're a horrible right-wing conspirator. When Lenin coined the term "useful idiots", he certainly wasn't quite thinking of people like Chubby. But in the 21st century NZ, guys like him are certainly the "useful idiots" of the Labour Party and are also doing a damn fine job of undermining of any sort of genuine, useful, and intelligent social liberalism.

[chubby]

nah matey, i wouldnt vote for those centrist bastards even to keep national out.

[cyc]

You might not vote Labour but you either support a party that will just blindly side with Labour in any of its perceived battles against the evil right, all other consequences be damned or will yourself defend any stupid policy from Labour whenever you perceive this as "sticking it" to the right. Still a useful idiot.

Honestly, this world has a lot more going on than just sticking it to one's enemies.

[Draco T Bastard]

After reading this bill I'm becoming concerned with it as well. I still support what it's trying to achieve but in it's present state it needs to go back to the drawing board.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by cyc

Honestly, this world has a lot more going on than just sticking it to one's enemies.

i couldnt agree more-
and seeing as i have to choose between a pack of bastards who'll tilt the playingfield to benefit the bottom 80%,or bastards who'll tilt it to benefit the top 20%- the choice seems obvious.
im old enough to have voted through national and labour govts- and if there's one thing i know its that all theclever billboards and weasel words from cunts like john key mean NOTHING.
im not really interested in your legal fine points or "free speech", however legislation is written either side can find legal types to slime through the cracks. at least itll be another holiday overseas for you or your mates right? youll survive.


(oh yeah ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ANTI-DEMOCRATIC)

[cyc]

It's quite funny how bozos like you think that everyone is driven purely by nasty, narcissistic self-interest in opposing this rubbish Bill. The first thing to note is that whether this bloody Bill passes or not makes no material difference to me, since the area of law that I work involves no dealings with the government whatsoever.

And since I am well educated, have skills that are in high demand, and actually don't believe in the concept of patriotism, should/when NZ go under, I'll just buy a one way ticket out of this place and continue to enjoy a decent life elsewhere, while laughing at idiots like you. I object to this Bill purely as a matter of principle (it's that "undemocratic" thing that you were jabbering on about) but I don't expect that you'd understand this either.

[chubby]

nice homepage by the way.

And since I am well educated, have skills that are in high demand, and actually don't believe in the concept of patriotism, should/when NZ go under, I'll just buy a one way ticket out of this place and continue to enjoy a decent life elsewhere, while laughing at idiots like you.

so nice that you care.

[Sp0nge]

Originally Posted by cyc

You might not vote Labour but you either support a party that will just blindly side with Labour in any of its perceived battles against the evil right...

lol, labour has been in power for 3 terms, and you still havent left the country?!?

that explains why you're an angry little man:
youve soaked up labour's colour
and its coloured you red with anger

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

After reading this bill I'm becoming concerned with it

So the thing that has changed is that you have actually read it now?

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by chubby

and where's GT with his -"what about property ownership or gender-based system?"

And there was me thinking that I was simply pointing out just how silly another's idea was. A translation for the less capable readers back then would have been "that's a really dumb idea"; has my sharing this helped you understand?

[chubby]

yes,thanks.
i read so much cynical/devils advocate kind've stuff here-i can no longer tell the difference.

[chubby]

http://www.publicaddress.net/default,4625.sm#post

[Saladin]

I gotta feel sorry for the anti-bill people

Family Party leader Richard Lewis, who joined today's march, said the bill undermined freedom of speech and expression in any given election year, "which strikes at the heart of New Zealand's democratic process of election".

Support from someone whose entire political platform stems from denying people free speech, in the form of freedom of religion.. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Though I guess anti-labour people feel the same whenever the Greens sign on for anything..

[Juha]

Let people spend what they want. 12% of NZers pay 55% of the tax take. If they feel like spending it on political means, then let em. When you've got Unionists and Labour decrying the wealthy and high income earners, and yet expecting them to prop up the rest of the country come budget-day, something is really really wrong. Labour is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[JP]

So rich people should have more say in democracy? No.

Poor rich people, they have it so hard. With all those privileges and luxuries. It's such a shame society makes it so hard for them. Oh wait.

Also, considering how much tax they avoid paying, I have no sympathy for them.

Wealthy people get more luxuries, and that's all they should get. They get far more privileges than they should as it stands, with regards to law, health, education etc.

[exo]

Originally Posted by JP

So rich people should have more say in democracy? No.

Poor rich people, they have it so hard. With all those privileges and luxuries. It's such a shame society makes it so hard for them. Oh wait.

Also, considering how much tax they avoid paying, I have no sympathy for them.

Wealthy people get more luxuries, and that's all they should get. They get far more privileges than they should as it stands, with regards to law, health, education etc.

People don't start off wealthy, they go to normal schools and make it further due to more effort and higher learning capacity. The money/wealth comes after, when of course smarter people can be more productive and take on higher paying responsibility's.
If the poor people could do the jobs that get paid more, they wouldn't be so poor.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by exo

People don't start off wealthy, they go to normal schools and make it further due to more effort and higher learning capacity. The money/wealth comes after, when of course smarter people can be more productive and take on higher paying responsibility's.
If the poor people could do the jobs that get paid more, they wouldn't be so poor.

It's not that simple and the largest share of the wealth created in NZ goes to people who don't work and who aren't on benefits.


I know how to make it almost as simple as you think it is though - a 100% death tax.

[Rince]

Originally Posted by Saladin

I gotta feel sorry for the anti-bill people



Support from someone whose entire political platform stems from denying people free speech, in the form of freedom of religion.. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Though I guess anti-labour people feel the same whenever the Greens sign on for anything..

I think I said this on the first page - so conflicted!